Time

[pig]

Pig:

Actually, no. Time remains universally the same. The slow-down of time takes place apparently when the observer views it from a POV of compression, or expansion, of distances of mobile objects. So, if you are traveling toward an object that is in turn traveling toward you, time speeds up. Likewise, the opposite is true. Now, that said, even the measuring instruments will actually show a loss or gain of time in these situations. Yet, the instruments were perfectly synchronous at the start. (It has been a while. So, if anyone finds that a correction, or corrections, need to be made, please don’t hesitate to do so.)

IOW, motion can be faster or slower. A slower motion is one that covers a given space in a longer time, while a faster motion is one that covers the same space in a shorter time. If time were motion, such expressions of speech would have to be altered.

God bless,
jd

Thats what I was saying nearly. Time, the abstract idea, is absolute. But time measured by, lets say an atomic clock, appears to slow down at speed. However it is simply the motion of the particle in the clocks measure which slows giving the apparent perception that time has slowed when in fact time, the abstract, (but impossible to measure) remains always constant, only matters motion has slowed.

 

[JDaniel]

Thats what I was saying nearly. Time, the abstract idea, is absolute. But time measured by, lets say an atomic clock, appears to slow down at speed. However it is simply the motion of the particle in the clocks measure which slows giving the apparent perception that time has slowed when in fact time, the abstract, (but impossible to measure) remains always constant, only matters motion has slowed.

Pig:

Wow! There’s a lot of physicists that would disagree!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You guys should read Julian Barbour’s (a respected physicist) book “The End of Time”. He doesn’t think the time is merely imaginary, he makes the case it doesn’t exist.

Don’t have time to explain right now.

Hi JD will get back to you one of these days.

Yppop

Yppop:

Very good!

God bless,
jd

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Pig:

Wow! There’s a lot of physicists that would disagree!

God bless,
jd

Here is one who would disagree with him. His assertion is basically while moving really fast (compared to an observer), the material within the object’s clock is actually moving slow. This theory violates several laws of physics, including Newton’s more famous set of laws!

Also, for piquing interest, the Hafele and Keating experimentally confirmed time dilation on board commercial airlines! The sent one atomic clock eastward and another westward and found that the eastward clock lost roughly 60 nanoseconds while the westward clock gained roughly 280 nanoseconds compared to a synchronized clock on earth!

 

[pig]

Here is one who would disagree with him. His assertion is basically while moving really fast (compared to an observer), the material within the object’s clock is actually moving slow. This theory violates several laws of physics, including Newton’s more famous set of laws!

Also, for piquing interest, the Hafele and Keating experimentally confirmed time dilation on board commercial airlines! The sent one atomic clock eastward and another westward and found that the eastward clock lost roughly 60 nanoseconds while the westward clock gained roughly 280 nanoseconds compared to a synchronized clock on earth!

interesting you would say that. The reason the clock runs slow is because the clock is measuring on an atomic scale. The clock is in fact an atom. When I say the clock slows its internal motion slows on a sub-atomic scale.
A very simple way to prove me wrong is to actually show me time itself slowing down using a large clock, a Newtonian scale clock, an ordinary spring-wound clock. If you accelerate a spring-wound clock and an atomic clock the spring-wound clock will not slow down at all. How could it?

 

[inocente]

You guys should read Julian Barbour’s (a respected physicist) book “The End of Time”. He doesn’t think the time is merely imaginary, he makes the case it doesn’t exist.

Don’t have time to explain right now.

Part of the book is online. It was published back in 1999 and seems to have sunk with all hands so it doesn’t sound as though the idea caught on. The wikipedia entry may explain why - “There is no general agreement that the ideas expressed in the book have any predictive power and thereby constitute a scientific theory”.

 

[inocente]

The sun setting is motion not time. Motion changes, increase the speed of an object or particle and its internal motion simultaneously slows down to compensate. Like an atomic clock traveling at speed will have the motion of its particle slowed. But the clock or object will not age more rapidly or less rapidly in the sense of time as we commonly understand it, as in, the object does not travel through time like a time-traveler.
It is just a quirk of material and this universe which has a balance to maintain between speed and motion and matter.

I can’t make head nor tail of that, sorry, it all sounds very confused.

 

[pig]

I can’t make head nor tail of that, sorry, it all sounds very confused.

well, make it easy on yourself, inocente.

“There is no general agreement that the ideas expressed in the book have any predictive power and thereby constitute a scientific theory”.

**A prediction for you to test:
**A very simple way to prove me wrong is to actually show me time itself slowing down using a large clock, a Newtonian scale clock; an ordinary spring-wound clock. If you accelerate a spring-wound clock and an atomic clock the spring-wound clock will not slow down at all.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

interesting you would say that. The reason the clock runs slow is because the clock is measuring on an atomic scale. The clock is in fact an atom. When I say the clock slows its internal motion slows on a sub-atomic scale.
A very simple way to prove me wrong is to actually show me time itself slowing down using a large clock, a Newtonian scale clock, an ordinary spring-wound clock. If you accelerate a spring-wound clock and an atomic clock the spring-wound clock will not slow down at all. How could it?

Interesting that you would say that. An atomic clock is not measuring on an atomic scale, nor is it an atom. It is measuring the transitions (i.e., photon count) of the ground state of a gas of cesium-144 (or rubidium-87). So it is not an atom but an ensemble of atoms; as an ensemble of atoms, relativistic and quantum effects do not matter, thus: it is a Newtonian-scale clock.

I must also repeat the following: you are still confusing time dilation with time measurement decreasing. If you accelerate a clock, regardless of it being an atomic (gas) clock or a spring-wound clock, you will not see time get slower! But, when you compare your accelerated clock to another clock that was stationary the whole time and was initially synchronized with your clock, you will see a difference in the times! This concept is what time dilation means, not time gets physically slower when you move at speed!

 

[inocente]

**A prediction for you to test:
**A very simple way to prove me wrong is to actually show me time itself slowing down using a large clock, a Newtonian scale clock; an ordinary spring-wound clock. If you accelerate a spring-wound clock and an atomic clock the spring-wound clock will not slow down at all.

Ah, there it is - “prove me wrong”. “The well tested laws of motion and relativity are bogus, prove me wrong”. “There are fairies at the bottom of the garden, prove me wrong.” “Aliens are running the country, prove me wrong.” “There are ghosts in the attic, prove me wrong.”



Pay me and I’ll gladly prove you wrong all day long, until then it’s not my job to disprove every wrong statement on the internet.

 

[pig]

Ah, there it is - “prove me wrong”. “The well tested laws of motion and relativity are bogus, prove me wrong”. “There are fairies at the bottom of the garden, prove me wrong.” “Aliens are running the country, prove me wrong.” “There are ghosts in the attic, prove me wrong.”



Pay me and I’ll gladly prove you wrong all day long, until then it’s not my job to disprove every wrong statement on the internet.

chicken. Spring-wound clocks are not like faeries, they do exist. You quoted somebody who said that such and such a theory was not valid because it made no predictions. Here you have got a definite prediction and to test it will cost you nothing as you probably already have many old spring-wound clocks lying around. off you go.

 

[pig]

Interesting that you would say that. An atomic clock is not measuring on an atomic scale, nor is it an atom. It is measuring the transitions (i.e., photon count) of the ground state of a gas of cesium-144 (or rubidium-87). So it is not an atom but an ensemble of atoms; as an ensemble of atoms, relativistic and quantum effects do not matter, thus: it is a Newtonian-scale clock.

I must also repeat the following: you are still confusing time dilation with time measurement decreasing. If you accelerate a clock, regardless of it being an atomic (gas) clock or a spring-wound clock, you will not see time get slower! But, when you compare your accelerated clock to another clock that was stationary the whole time and was initially synchronized with your clock, you will see a difference in the times! This concept is what time dilation means, not time gets physically slower when you move at speed!

I know time doesn’t get slower, it is imaginary. What gets slower is the internal motion of particles. That motion controls their measured effect and you get the apparent anomaly of time slowing from an outside observers point of view if they could see the clock which was moving.
I was talking about the aluminium ion clocks;

…clocks are each based on the “ticking” of a single aluminum ion (electrically charged atom) as it vibrates between two energy levels over a million billion times per second.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Interesting that you would say that. An atomic clock is not measuring on an atomic scale, nor is it an atom. It is measuring the transitions (i.e., photon count) of the ground state of a gas of cesium-144 (or rubidium-87). So it is not an atom but an ensemble of atoms; as an ensemble of atoms, relativistic and quantum effects do not matter, thus: it is a Newtonian-scale clock.

I must also repeat the following: you are still confusing time dilation with time measurement decreasing. If you accelerate a clock, regardless of it being an atomic (gas) clock or a spring-wound clock, you will not see time get slower! But, when you compare your accelerated clock to another clock that was stationary the whole time and was initially synchronized with your clock, you will see a difference in the times! This concept is what time dilation means, not time gets physically slower when you move at speed!

Let’s consider two virtual atoms, a nucleus and a single electron. One orbit is one tick.
Moving atom does one tick, stationary does two ticks. Does the electron of the moving atom move slower?

 

[Jaaanosik]

interesting you would say that. The reason the clock runs slow is because the clock is measuring on an atomic scale. The clock is in fact an atom. When I say the clock slows its internal motion slows on a sub-atomic scale.
A very simple way to prove me wrong is to actually show me time itself slowing down using a large clock, a Newtonian scale clock, an ordinary spring-wound clock. If you accelerate a spring-wound clock and an atomic clock** the spring-wound clock will not slow down at all. **How could it?

That’s a wrong assumption. What if the stiffness of the moving clock springs would be higher and it would slow down the clock?
You don’t have a proof of your claim. It seems the time dilation is real though misunderstood by many people.

 

[inocente]

chicken. Spring-wound clocks are not like faeries, they do exist. You quoted somebody who said that such and such a theory was not valid because it made no predictions. Here you have got a definite prediction and to test it will cost you nothing as you probably already have many old spring-wound clocks lying around. off you go.

Chicken? Please find someone else if you want to play kids’ games.

You’re the one who is throwing out both Newton and Einstein, you’ve obviously worked out how to test your prediction, so test it and let me know the results, I’ll trust you.

 

[JDaniel]

Thats what I was saying nearly. Time, the abstract idea, is absolute. But time measured by, lets say an atomic clock, appears to slow down at speed. However it is simply the motion of the particle in the clocks measure which slows giving the apparent perception that time has slowed when in fact time, the abstract, (but impossible to measure) remains always constant, only matters motion has slowed.

Pig:

I re-read this post and think I understand you now. What you are saying is, “time,” as we describe it, is nothing more than some extraneous numerality, i.e., a “construct,” that we humans apply to motion, but not necessarily to motion in general. Some motions are fast, some slow. But, it is the general motion of everything in the universe - maybe a sort of averaging - that we perceive as ‘time flowing’. We humans simply apply a consensus to that flowing. “Real time” is what can’t be measured, as it exists only as a universalization of general motion, i.e., the “motion of the universe.” The motion of the universe in general maintains a “flow” of time that is unchangeable no matter what speed individual mobile beings are moving at. So, when we view motion localized, we may be looking at different speeds of motion, and therefore, perceptional differences in actual, real time. Is that about right?

God bless,
jd

 

[pig]

That’s a wrong assumption. What if the stiffness of the moving clock springs would be higher and it would slow down the clock?
You don’t have a proof of your claim. It seems the time dilation is real though misunderstood by many people.

i wondered about that too. i think there would or could be constants, like the constant nature or the particle, element and object. The substance of the object could remain the same while something akin to the proportions of its own intrinsic energy to its added acceleration would change.

 

[Jaaanosik]

i wondered about that too. i think there would or could be constants, like the constant nature or the particle, element and object. The substance of the object could remain the same while something akin to the proportions of its own intrinsic energy to its added acceleration would change.

Movement of the matter makes it stiffer. I am quite positive on that one.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I know time doesn’t get slower, it is imaginary. What gets slower is the internal motion of particles. That motion controls their measured effect and you get the apparent anomaly of time slowing from an outside observers point of view if they could see the clock which was moving.
I was talking about the aluminium ion clocks;

You cannot have it both ways: you cannot have slower moving components when the whole thing is moving really fast! It is completely illogical and violates Newton’s laws.

If you had mean an aluminum ion clock, you should have said so. It is not the colloquial atomic clock, nor is it standard. And, as far as I understand what is necessary for the AIC, you need a whole lot more than just a single aluminum ion; something like a refrigerant, a couple lasers, and several other devices. These extras are all macroscopic objects (i.e., Newtonian scale) and would be subject to quite the same restrictions as the spring-wound clock.

 

[pig]

Pig:

I re-read this post and think I understand you now. What you are saying is, “time,” as we describe it, is nothing more than some extraneous numerality, i.e., a “construct,” that we humans apply to motion, but not necessarily to motion in general. Some motions are fast, some slow. But, it is the general motion of everything in the universe - maybe a sort of averaging - that we perceive as ‘time flowing’. We humans simply apply a consensus to that flowing. “Real time” is what can’t be measured, as it exists only as a universalization of general motion, i.e., the “motion of the universe.” The motion of the universe in general maintains a “flow” of time that is unchangeable no matter what speed individual mobile beings are moving at. So, when we view motion localized, we may be looking at different speeds of motion, and therefore, perceptional differences in actual, real time. Is that about right?

God bless,
jd

yes, I think so, you are nearly as good at writing like this as I am.
Time is like an invented overlay on the universe used simply to obtain ‘co-ordinates’ for sequences of events or motions. But how such a thing could in reality affect a material clock would be a great mystery.
There needs to be a more mechanistic explanation for why clocks traveling at speed record slower measurements than clocks at rest.
If you start with the nature of reality and the ‘Oneness’ of everything, (some people won’t like that), and then decide logically and reasonably that everything has its origin and takes its nature from the expansion of the universe. Before the universe, presumably there was nothing, after the universe expanded there was everything.
So the universe is a closed system which contains everything. The only ‘new’ thing that the universe created when it expanded was the property or quality called ‘direction’.
Everything is now tied to the expansion of the universe and this new property ‘direction’.
A particle in any part of the universe is simply a continuing product of an expanding closed system.
If you imagine the universe expanding as two hands pulling on the ends of a string then where the theoretical direction of both forces of the pulling hands meet in the string there you have created an elementary particle in the universe. The particles very existence is tied to the expansion of the universe.
Since this universe is a closed system you cannot create any extra energy as that would be the same as increasing the expansion rate of the universe, and that is already set as the universe is already in existence.
So if you add energy to a point particle and accelerate it it cannot remain unchanged totally within a closed system. A point particle is unlike a massive object. It cannot radiate away any extra energy as it is the simplest of point particles. All it can do in return for gaining this extra energy in acceleration is to lose proportionally some of its ‘internal motion’ , however you choose to view that substance or thing. The net effect is that the point particles nature loses some motion, this could be seen as an oscillating or resonating nature, which in turn translates upwards into higher more complex particles as a loss or slowing of signal or energy to radiate.
So the more energy you place into a closed system to accelerate a point particle the more internal energy the point particle is forced to lose to conserve the Law of Conservation of Energy.
So we see the reduced rate of radiation in an atomic clock as somehow the reduced flow of time. But of course we have confused an imaginary concept, time, with a material action which is itself bound and constrained to act logically and rationally within a closed system.